Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: 19SMCV00854, Date: 2022-12-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19SMCV00854 Hearing Date: December 13, 2022 Dept: 207
Background
Plaintiff Angelique Gettle (“Plaintiff”) brings this action
against Defendant Emilia Vaynman (“Defendant”) and others stemming from claims
of inhabitability and negligence concerning her tenancy at a residential
property located at 1419 Stanford St., Unit A in Santa Monica, California.
Defendant brings this motion to compel a mental examination of Plaintiff,
arguing she has claimed to have suffered emotional distress in connection with
her claims and has prevented Defendant from conducting discovery into the
nature and severity of these claimed emotional damages. Defendant’s motion is
unopposed.
Legal Standard
To obtain
discovery by mental examination, a party must obtain leave of court. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2032.310, subd. (a).) The motion for a mental examination must specify
“the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, as well
as the identity and the specialty, if any, of the person or persons who will perform
the examination.” (Id., § 2032.310, subd. (b).) The motion must be accompanied
by a meet and confer declaration. (Ibid.) Any party may obtain discovery
by mental examination of another party’s mental condition if it is in controversy
in the action. (Id., § 2032.020.)
The court
shall grant a motion for a mental examination only for good cause shown. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2032.320, subd. (a).) To establish “good cause,” the moving party must
produce specific facts justifying the discovery and that the subject matter is relevant
to the action. (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840 (Vinson).)
One party’s unsubstantiated allegation cannot put the mental state of another in
controversy. (Id. at p. 839.) “While a plaintiff may place his mental state
in controversy by a general allegation of severe emotional distress, the opposing
party may not require him to undergo psychiatric testing solely on the basis of
speculation that something of interest may surface.” (Id. at p. 840.) If
a party stipulates that no claim is being made for mental or emotional distress
over and above that usually associated with the physical injuries claimed and that
no expert testimony regarding this usual mental and emotional distress will be presented
at trial in support of the claim for damages, a mental examination may only be ordered
on a showing of exceptional circumstances. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.320, subds.
(b)-(c).)
Additionally,
the party who seeks to compel a mental examination bears the burden to specify the
diagnostic tests and procedures to be conducted. (Carpenter v. Superior Court
(2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 249, 267 (Carpenter).) “Insisting that section 2032.320
means what it says—that the diagnostic tests and procedures must be specified—will
result in an orderly and efficient means of balancing the interests of the plaintiff
and defendant. The defendant, aware that the court must name the diagnostic tests
and procedures in the order granting a mental examination, will identify the potential
tests and procedures in its moving papers. The plaintiff, assisted by counsel and
a psychologist or other expert, may consider whether the proposed tests are inappropriate,
irrelevant, or abusive, and submit evidence and argument to that effect if necessary.”
(Ibid.)
Analysis
1. Meet and Confer
“A motion for an examination under
subdivision (a) shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature
of the examination, as well as the identity and the specialty, if any, of the person
or persons who will perform the examination.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2032.310, subd.
(b).) The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under section
2016.040. (Ibid.)
A declaration under section 2016.040
must state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution
of each issue presented in the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.) “[A] reasonable
and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering
with [opposing] counsel…. Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk
the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Clement v. Alegre
(2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294 (Clement).) “A determination of whether
an attempt at informal resolution is adequate involves the exercise of discretion.”
(Stewart v. Colonial W. Agency (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016, internal
ellipses omitted.) Where a party fails to make any real effort at informal resolution,
a particularly egregious failure may justify an immediate and outright denial of
further discovery. (Obregon v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 433-34
(Obregon), citing Townsend v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431,
1437.)
Defendant’s counsel Edwin Schwartz
attests that he has made efforts to resolve this issue with Plaintiff’s counsel
prior to bringing this action, including through correspondence and by
participating in an informal discovery conference with the Court. (Schwartz
Decl. at ¶¶2-5.) Defendant was given permission of the Court to file this
motion after the informal discovery conference held on October 10, 2022. (Id.
at ¶2.) Counsel’s declaration is sufficient for Defendant to meet the meet and confer
requirement.
2. Mental
Examination
The Court finds good cause to
grant Defendant’s request to compel a medical examination of Plaintiff.
Plaintiff has put her mental and emotional state at issue by claiming emotional
distress as damages in this action and refusing to stipulate in discovery as to
whether she was seeking special damages for such emotional distress above and
beyond what Defendant terms “garden variety emotional distress.” Defendant is
entitled to conduct discovery as to Plaintiff’s damages in preparation for
trial. (C.C.P. §§2032.020(a), 2032.310.) Plaintiff has not filed an
opposition to this motion and thus has not provided the Court with any basis to
deny Defendant’s request.
The Court notes Defendant’s motion satisfies the
requirements set forth above in moving to compel a mental examination. Defendant
requests the Court order Plaintiff be examined by Dr. Manuel Saint Martin,
M.D., J.D., on a mutually agreeable date within 45 days of the date of this
order at 8618 La Tijera Boulevard, Suite 400, Los Angeles, California 90045.
(Motion at 2.) Dr. Saint Martin is a licensed physician specializing in
psychiatrics and neurology. (Id.) The examination is to take
approximately four to six hours and will include a standard psychiatric
interview including information about Plaintiff’s medical and psychological
history. (Ex. C to Schwartz Decl.) Additional psychological testing will be
performed and may include some or all of the following tests: (1) Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory, (2) Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory,
(3) Personality Assessment Inventory, (4) Trauma Symptoms Inventory, and (5)
Test of Non-Verbal Intelligence. (Id.) Breaks for personal comfort or
necessity may be taken by Plaintiff as needed. (Id.) The Court finds this satisfies the requirements of Code Civ.
Proc. § 2032.310.
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion
for a mental examination of Plaintiff is GRANTED.
Conclusion
Defendant’s motion for a mental
examination of Plaintiff is GRANTED.